Summaries of EDI-survey responses

baseline version

introduction

This report summarises the findings of a survey sent out to the PsychoPy community between 28 November 2022 and 16 March 2023. The topic was equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the PsychoPy community.

Funding

The development of the survey was funded by a grant from the Essential Open Source Software for Science program at the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, or CZI. Here is the project page at CZI.

It was the first, baseline version, of two identical surveys to be sent out. The second will be sent out in 2024.

It was sent out as an announcement to the PsychoPy User Forum on the Discourse platform. It was also sent out by email to a list of authors generated through a cited-reference search on the Web of Science. Specifically, these authors published multiple research studies citing one or more papers authored (or co-authored) by Jonathan Peirce over the past two decades about PsychoPy.

The survey contained between 25-75 questions, depending on how participants responded.

Responses were all anonymous. That is, nowhere do we have any record of who, exactly, replied to the survey.

There were three main parts to the survey:

• participant background
  
• EDI experience 
  
• guidance

Participant background asked participants about their career status, the degree to which they were engaged in the PsychoPy community, how they contributed to the project, and if there was anything that deterred them from contributing more than they already do.

Below are the full survey categories in more detail, roughly in order of the original presentation.

• Professional & PsychoPy background
  
  • career status
    
  • type of engagement with PsychoPy^®
    
  • ways of contributing
    
  • deterrents to contributing
    
• EDI experience
  
  • gender
    
  • sexual orientation
    
  • race and/or culture
    
  • disability and/or neurodivergence
    
  • language dominance
    
• PsychoPy Guidance
  
  • awareness of Code of Conduct
    
  • findability, searchability, & accessibility of documentation
    
  • trust in enforcement of Code of Conduct

We also

ETHICS FUNDING SAMPLING FRAME SAMPLE SIZE APPROACH TO SURVEY DEVELOPMENT

general

MORE WRITING ON DESCRIPTION

original order of presentation

The original presentation of the survey begins with professional and PsychoPy background questions. It then proceeds to issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) for respondents who indicated that they not only are part of a particular identity of interest, but also feel they have been affected somehow by having that identity in the PsychoPy community. The survey finished with a few questions about the Code of Conduct and documentation, which we will simply call PsychoPy guidance. Thus:

• Professional and PsychoPy background
  
• EDI experience
  
• PsychoPy guidance

Each participant saw the all of the professional and PsychoPy background items on the survey, as well as the PsychoPy guidance items. In the section on EDI experience, each respondent saw at least one of the questions, with the exception of gender, in which case everyone saw at least two.

The one EDI questions that everyone saw had to do with whether they identified with, or was typically associated with, one of the EDI groups. In the case of gender, they simply indicated what their gender was, or if it was not listed.

If they answered yes to any particular EDI question (or any response for gender), two more questions appeared. The first invited them to supply more specific information about that particular aspect of their identity, but only if they wanted to. The second had to do with whether they felt that this particular aspect of their identity had affected their interactions in the PsychoPy^® community.

Importantly, this latter question determined whether participants saw a further eight questions regarding that particular identity. If they answered yes, they saw those questions a little bit later in the survey. If they answered no, they did not. This has an important implication. Namely, although one may identify or be associated with a particular identity, that does not necessarily mean that one feels that it had affected one’s interactions in the PsychoPy^® community. Indeed, there were many participants throughout the survey who felt that althought they are associated with a particular identity, it had not affected their interactions.

Recall that for the dimension of gender, everyone saw the question concerning whether they felt that their interactions had suffered as a result of gender. This is because everyone has a gender identity, so there was no logical way of excluding anyone from seeing the subsequent community-interaction question.

order of data summaries

Each of the headings in the list above above is depicted below with a visualisation, followed by a table of the data, and in the cases of identity, a table of labels that some participants optionally supplied to describe themselves on that particular EDI variable.

Ultimately however, it makes more sense to present the data summaries in a different order. Specifically, it would be informative to see how the background variables and related issues interact with the EDI variables. Therefore, the background and guidance variables are presented after the EDI variables, giving us a data-summary order as follows:

• EDI experience
  
• Professional & PsychoPy background
  
• PsychoPy Guidance

Each background and guidance variable is presented in isolation first, but then followed by each possible two-way interaction with the EDI variables of gender, sexual orientation, race, disability/neurodivergence, and written-English language dominance*.

To the extent possible, each summary is available as a link in the sidebar. However, some interactions were grouped together and don’t have links, per se. Most commonly, interactions with gender are linked, followed by interactions with other EDI variables.

Note that none of the questions required responses. This means that there will be plenty of non-responses in the summaries below. These are indicated as either NA or missing.

---

data summaries

participant EDI experience

The second group of items on the survey (again, presented first here) collected information about selected dimensions of equity, diversity, and inclusion, namely gender, sexual orientation, race and/or culture, disability and/or neurodivergence, and language dominance.

For each dimension, participants were asked if they identified with the dimension, or whether they thought that others would associate them with it, along with the optional opportunity to supply more information about their own specific identity along this dimension.

Crucially, they were also asked whether they felt that that identity or association had affected their interactions in the PsychoPy^® community. If they answered in the affirmative, they saw eight more questions related to this identity shortly thereafter in the survey.

Thus, the reader will notice that the sample sizes uniformly differ greatly between those who answered the background questions, and those who answered the eight further questions.

These eight further questions fell into three categories in the manner shown below:

• Treatment by others
  
  • negative perception
    
  • need to hide identity
    
  • dismissiveness towards contributions
    
  • target of derisive comments
    
  • target of microaggressions
    
• Self-regard
  
  • self-doubt
    
  • stereotype threat
    
• Isolation
  
  • a desire to interact with others more like themselves

Participants could agree or disagree with each of these statements using a 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 indicated Strongly disagree and a 7 indicated Strongly agree.

Note

Note that on the 1-7 scale for each of the statements, the number 4 is directly in the middle of the scale, which can be interpreted as neither agreeing nor disagreeing. You will see that we set responses of 4 to the side of the respective stacked frequency barplots, in yellow.

Also, the barplots are sorted within each category (treatment, self-regard, and isolation) along descending frequency of agreement. That is, the topmost barplot within each category is the one with highest number of agreements, whereas the bottommost barplot within each category is the one with the highest number of disagreements.

Summaries of the responses to these statements are provided below after the respective questions concerning their identity.

gender

The first EDI category is gender. We present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy^® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Which gender do you identify most with?

figure

table

Summary of responses to gender.

Question	N = 2301
Which gender do you identify most with?
man	133 (58%)
woman	85 (37%)
not listed	8 (3.5%)
(missing)	4 (1.7%)
1n (%)

descriptions

If participants chose yes as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their gender, though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to describe your gender here (or not)

---

felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your gender status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their gender identity.

Question	N = 2301
Do you feel that your gender status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?
Yes	5 (2.2%)
No	209 (91%)
(missing)	16 (7.0%)
1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding gender determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

---

treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the zero who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their gender identity has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualisation.

figure

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding gender

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	N = 230
I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my gender]	4 (226)
Mean		1.8
SD		1.50
Median		1.0
IQR		1.0, 1.8
Range		1, 4
I have felt the need to hide [my gender] in order to be taken seriously	4 (226)
Mean		2.2
SD		1.89
Median		1.5
IQR		1.0, 2.8
Range		1, 5
My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my gender]	4 (226)
Mean		2.0
SD		1.41
Median		1.5
IQR		1.0, 2.5
Range		1, 4
I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my gender]	4 (226)
Mean		2.0
SD		1.41
Median		1.5
IQR		1.0, 2.5
Range		1, 4
[Due to my gender] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful	4 (226)
Mean		2.2
SD		1.89
Median		1.5
IQR		1.0, 2.8
Range		1, 5
[Due to my gender] I have doubted my own potential	5 (225)
Mean		3.8
SD		2.17
Median		4.0
IQR		3.0, 4.0
Range		1, 7
[Due to my gender] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills	5 (225)
Mean		3.6
SD		2.30
Median		4.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 7
I wish I saw more people in the community that were similar [in gender] to me	5 (225)
Mean		3.2
SD		3.03
Median		1.0
IQR		1.0, 6.0
Range		1, 7

[PROVISIONAL REMARKS]

• This is a pretty small group, but something that stands out so far is that only one of them agreed with most of the statements, and there was only one statement where two of them agreed with it (isolation)
  
• Of course, the other surprising thing was that none of the participants who indicated that their gender was not listed indicated that they felt that their gender had affected their interactions in the PsychoPy^® community. Yet two people who identified as men and three who identified as women did. Note that we don’t really have a way of determining what proportion of those four were transgender.

---

sexual orientation

The second EDI category is sexual orientation. As above, we present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy^® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

figure

table

Summary of responses to sexual orientation

Question	N = 2301
Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?
Yes	36 (16%)
No	189 (82%)
(missing)	5 (2.2%)
1n (%)

---

descriptions

If participants chose yes as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their sexual identity, though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to describe your sexual orientation here (or not)

---

felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your sexual orientation has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their sexual orientation

Question	N = 2301
Do you feel that your sexual orientation has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?
Yes	1 (0.4%)
No	35 (15%)
(missing)	194 (84%)
1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding sexual orientation determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

---

treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the zero who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their sexual orientation has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualisation.

figure

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding sexual orientation

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	N = 230
I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my non-heterosexuality]	1 (229)
Mean		2.0
SD		NA
Median		2.0
IQR		2.0, 2.0
Range		2, 2
I have felt the need to hide [my non-heterosexuality] in order to be taken seriously	1 (229)
Mean		2.0
SD		NA
Median		2.0
IQR		2.0, 2.0
Range		2, 2
My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my non-heterosexuality]	1 (229)
Mean		2.0
SD		NA
Median		2.0
IQR		2.0, 2.0
Range		2, 2
I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my non-heterosexuality]	1 (229)
Mean		2.0
SD		NA
Median		2.0
IQR		2.0, 2.0
Range		2, 2
[Due to my non-heterosexuality] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful	1 (229)
Mean		2.0
SD		NA
Median		2.0
IQR		2.0, 2.0
Range		2, 2
[Due to my non-heterosexuality] I have doubted my own potential	1 (229)
Mean		1.0
SD		NA
Median		1.0
IQR		1.0, 1.0
Range		1, 1
[Due to my non-heterosexuality] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills	1 (229)
Mean		2.0
SD		NA
Median		2.0
IQR		2.0, 2.0
Range		2, 2
I wish I saw more people in the community that were similar [in non-heterosexuality] to me	1 (229)
Mean		4.0
SD		NA
Median		4.0
IQR		4.0, 4.0
Range		4, 4

[PROVISIONAL REMARKS]

• Of the 36 people who indicated that they were associated with non-heterosexuality, only one thought it had affected their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community, and they mostly disagreed with negative treatment by others and disagreed with statements expressing low self-regard. They were neutral-ish on whether they’d like to see others more like them in the community.

---

race / culture

The third EDI category is race and/or culture. As before, we present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy^® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

figure

table

Summary of responses to race and/or culture

Question	N = 2301
Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?
Yes	42 (18%)
No	184 (80%)
(missing)	4 (1.7%)
1n (%)

---

descriptions

If participants chose yes as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their race(s) and/or culture(s), though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to describe your race and/or culture here (or not)

---

felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your race and/or culture has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their race and/or culture

Question	N = 2301
Do you feel that your race and/or culture has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?
Yes	3 (1.3%)
No	39 (17%)
(missing)	188 (82%)
1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding race and/our culture determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

---

treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the zero who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their racial and/or cultural identity has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualisation.

figure

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding race and/or culture

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	N = 230
I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my race and/or culture]	3 (227)
Mean		4.7
SD		1.53
Median		5.0
IQR		4.0, 5.5
Range		3, 6
I have felt the need to hide [my race and/or culture] in order to be taken seriously	3 (227)
Mean		4.0
SD		1.00
Median		4.0
IQR		3.5, 4.5
Range		3, 5
My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my race and/or culture]	3 (227)
Mean		4.0
SD		2.00
Median		4.0
IQR		3.0, 5.0
Range		2, 6
I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my race and/or culture]	3 (227)
Mean		1.7
SD		0.58
Median		2.0
IQR		1.5, 2.0
Range		1, 2
[Due to my race and/or culture] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful	3 (227)
Mean		4.0
SD		2.00
Median		4.0
IQR		3.0, 5.0
Range		2, 6
[Due to my race and/or culture] I have doubted my own potential	3 (227)
Mean		5.7
SD		0.58
Median		6.0
IQR		5.5, 6.0
Range		5, 6
[Due to my race and/or culture] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills	3 (227)
Mean		5.3
SD		1.15
Median		6.0
IQR		5.0, 6.0
Range		4, 6
I wish I saw more people in the community that were similar [in race and/or culture] to me	3 (227)
Mean		6.0
SD		1.00
Median		6.0
IQR		5.5, 6.5
Range		5, 7

[PROVISIONAL REMARKS]

• Out of the 42 people who indicated that they were of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against, only 3 indicated that they had felt that their interactions within the PsychoPy^® community had been affected because of it. That seems fairly low (though still a problem).
  
• Those three seemed evenly split on most of the treatment category (with the exception of intentionally derisive comments, where there was strictly disagreement). And all of them expressed some sort of agreement with the self-regard and isolation items.

---

disability / neurodivergence

The fourth EDI category is disability and/or neurodivergence. As above, we present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy^® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

figure

table

Summary of responses to disability and/or neurodivergence

Question	N = 2301
Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?
Yes	28 (12%)
No	199 (87%)
(missing)	3 (1.3%)
1n (%)

---

descriptions

If participants chose yes as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their disability(-ies) and/or neurodivergence, though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to describe your disabled and/or neurodivergent status (or not)

---

felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your disabled and/or neurodivergent status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their disability and/or neurodivergence

Question	N = 2301
Do you feel that your disabled and/or neurodivergent status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?
Yes	6 (2.6%)
No	22 (9.6%)
(missing)	202 (88%)
1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding disability and/or neurodivergence determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

---

treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the zero who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their disability and/or neurodivergence has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualisation.

figure

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding disability

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	N = 230
I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my disability and/or neurodivergence]	6 (224)
Mean		2.2
SD		1.94
Median		1.5
IQR		1.0, 2.0
Range		1, 6
I have felt the need to hide [my disability and/or neurodivergence] in order to be taken seriously	6 (224)
Mean		2.0
SD		1.55
Median		1.5
IQR		1.0, 2.0
Range		1, 5
My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my disability and/or neurodivergence]	6 (224)
Mean		1.5
SD		0.55
Median		1.5
IQR		1.0, 2.0
Range		1, 2
I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my disability and/or neurodivergence]	6 (224)
Mean		1.5
SD		0.84
Median		1.0
IQR		1.0, 1.8
Range		1, 3
[Due to my disability and/or neurodivergence] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful	6 (224)
Mean		1.2
SD		0.41
Median		1.0
IQR		1.0, 1.0
Range		1, 2
[Due to my disability and/or neurodivergence] I have doubted my own potential	6 (224)
Mean		5.0
SD		2.10
Median		5.5
IQR		5.0, 6.0
Range		1, 7
[Due to my disability and/or neurodivergence] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills	6 (224)
Mean		4.5
SD		2.26
Median		5.0
IQR		3.2, 6.0
Range		1, 7
I wish I saw more people in the community that were similar [in disability and/or neurodivergence] to me	6 (224)
Mean		4.5
SD		2.95
Median		5.5
IQR		1.8, 7.0
Range		1, 7

[PROVISIONAL REMARKS]

• Of the 28 participants who indicated some sort of disability and/or neurodivergence, six indicated that they thought that status had affected their interactions in the PsychoPy^® community. I think this is the highest percentage of all the groups.
  
• Interestingly, among those six, there was fairly widespread disagreement with the notion that they had been treated poorly by others. Rather, there is much more agreement with the self-regard issues. That is, 4-5 of those six seem to indicate lack of confidence.
  
• A slight majority of them also feel isolated.

---

written-English language dominance

The fifth EDI category is written-English language dominance. As before, we present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy^® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

figure

table

Summary of responses to written-English language dominance

Question	N = 2301
Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?
Yes	140 (61%)
No	89 (39%)
(missing)	1 (0.4%)
1n (%)

---

descriptions

If participants chose no as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their dominant language, though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to type in your dominant language (or not)

---

felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your dominant language has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their non-English written-language dominance

Question	N = 2301
Do you feel that your dominant language has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?
Yes	10 (4.3%)
No	79 (34%)
(missing)	141 (61%)
1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding language dominance in written English determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

---

treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the zero who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their language dominance has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualisation.

figure

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding dominant language

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	N = 230
I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my dominant written language]	10 (220)
Mean		2.8
SD		2.10
Median		2.5
IQR		1.0, 4.0
Range		1, 7
I have felt the need to hide [my dominant written language] in order to be taken seriously	10 (220)
Mean		3.0
SD		2.45
Median		2.0
IQR		1.0, 4.5
Range		1, 7
My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my dominant written language]	10 (220)
Mean		2.2
SD		1.81
Median		2.0
IQR		1.0, 2.0
Range		1, 7
I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my dominant written language]	10 (220)
Mean		1.5
SD		1.08
Median		1.0
IQR		1.0, 1.0
Range		1, 4
[Due to my dominant written language] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful	10 (220)
Mean		1.5
SD		1.27
Median		1.0
IQR		1.0, 1.0
Range		1, 5
[Due to my dominant written language] I have doubted my own potential	10 (220)
Mean		2.5
SD		1.72
Median		2.0
IQR		1.0, 3.8
Range		1, 6
[Due to my dominant written language] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills	10 (220)
Mean		2.4
SD		1.96
Median		1.0
IQR		1.0, 3.8
Range		1, 6
I wish I saw more people in the community who used my language	10 (220)
Mean		4.7
SD		2.83
Median		6.5
IQR		1.5, 7.0
Range		1, 7

[PROVISIONAL REMARKS]

• the percentage of participants dominant in a written language other than English was second only to those indicating one or more disabilities and/or neurodivergence.
  
• their dominant concern seems to be isolation rather than treatment by others or self-regard
  
• a sizeable minority of them, however, is concerned that they feel they need to hide their language dominance in order to be taken seriously.

---

participant background

The first few items on the survey collected information about general background demographics, including participants’ career status, the role they typically play in their usage of PsychoPy^®.

Unlike the items above that directly address dimensions of equity, diversity, and inclusion, everyone was able to answer the questions below. However, we can still view each item with respect to whether responses varied according to the various groups that respondents identified with.

These are covered in the subsections below.

career status

This section summarises, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Roughly speaking, what is your career status?

Participants had to choose from one of the following:

• Researcher - early career (e.g. PhD, postdoc)
  
• Researcher - mid career (e.g. Assistant/Associate Professor)
  
• Researcher - senior (e.g. Full Professor)
  
• Technical - junior
  
• Technical - senior

everyone

The visualisation below presents responses in descending order of frequency.

figure

table

Summary of responses to career status

Question	N = 2301
Roughly speaking, what is your career status?
Researcher - early career	104 (45%)
Researcher - mid career	63 (27%)
Researcher - senior	30 (13%)
Technical - junior	6 (2.6%)
Technical - senior	18 (7.8%)
(missing)	9 (3.9%)
1n (%)

[PROVISIONAL REMARKS]

• Looks like almost half of the responses came from early-career researchers

---

interactions

gender

figure

table

Summary of responses to career status by gender.

	Which gender do you identify most with?
	man	woman	not listed	NA	Total
Roughly speaking, what is your career status?
Researcher - early career	49 (21%)	50 (22%)	4 (1.7%)	1 (0.4%)	104 (45%)
Researcher - mid career	41 (18%)	20 (8.7%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)	63 (27%)
Researcher - senior	24 (10%)	5 (2.2%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)	30 (13%)
Technical - junior	5 (2.2%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	6 (2.6%)
Technical - senior	11 (4.8%)	5 (2.2%)	2 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	18 (7.8%)
NA	3 (1.3%)	5 (2.2%)	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	9 (3.9%)
Total	133 (58%)	85 (37%)	8 (3.5%)	4 (1.7%)	230 (100%)

other EDI dimensions

figure

tables

Summary of responses to career status by sexual orientation

	Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?
	Yes	No	NA	Total
Roughly speaking, what is your career status?
Researcher - early career	21 (9.1%)	83 (36%)	0 (0%)	104 (45%)
Researcher - mid career	4 (1.7%)	57 (25%)	2 (0.9%)	63 (27%)
Researcher - senior	2 (0.9%)	25 (11%)	3 (1.3%)	30 (13%)
Technical - junior	3 (1.3%)	3 (1.3%)	0 (0%)	6 (2.6%)
Technical - senior	4 (1.7%)	14 (6.1%)	0 (0%)	18 (7.8%)
NA	2 (0.9%)	7 (3.0%)	0 (0%)	9 (3.9%)
Total	36 (16%)	189 (82%)	5 (2.2%)	230 (100%)

---

Summary of responses to career status by race and/or culture

	Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?
	Yes	No	NA	Total
Roughly speaking, what is your career status?
Researcher - early career	27 (12%)	76 (33%)	1 (0.4%)	104 (45%)
Researcher - mid career	7 (3.0%)	56 (24%)	0 (0%)	63 (27%)
Researcher - senior	3 (1.3%)	25 (11%)	2 (0.9%)	30 (13%)
Technical - junior	0 (0%)	6 (2.6%)	0 (0%)	6 (2.6%)
Technical - senior	3 (1.3%)	14 (6.1%)	1 (0.4%)	18 (7.8%)
NA	2 (0.9%)	7 (3.0%)	0 (0%)	9 (3.9%)
Total	42 (18%)	184 (80%)	4 (1.7%)	230 (100%)

---

Summary of responses to career status by disability and/or neurodivergence

	Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?
	Yes	No	NA	Total
Roughly speaking, what is your career status?
Researcher - early career	14 (6.1%)	90 (39%)	0 (0%)	104 (45%)
Researcher - mid career	4 (1.7%)	58 (25%)	1 (0.4%)	63 (27%)
Researcher - senior	1 (0.4%)	27 (12%)	2 (0.9%)	30 (13%)
Technical - junior	4 (1.7%)	2 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	6 (2.6%)
Technical - senior	4 (1.7%)	14 (6.1%)	0 (0%)	18 (7.8%)
NA	1 (0.4%)	8 (3.5%)	0 (0%)	9 (3.9%)
Total	28 (12%)	199 (87%)	3 (1.3%)	230 (100%)

---

Summary of responses to career status by dominant written language

	Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?
	Yes	No	NA	Total
Roughly speaking, what is your career status?
Researcher - early career	58 (25%)	46 (20%)	0 (0%)	104 (45%)
Researcher - mid career	38 (17%)	25 (11%)	0 (0%)	63 (27%)
Researcher - senior	20 (8.7%)	9 (3.9%)	1 (0.4%)	30 (13%)
Technical - junior	4 (1.7%)	2 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	6 (2.6%)
Technical - senior	13 (5.7%)	5 (2.2%)	0 (0%)	18 (7.8%)
NA	7 (3.0%)	2 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	9 (3.9%)
Total	140 (61%)	89 (39%)	1 (0.4%)	230 (100%)

---

type of engagement with PsychoPy^®

This section summarises, both visually and verbally, the responses to the following prompt:

What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)

Participants had to choose from one of the following:

• Occasional user
  
• Frequent user
  
• Occasional contributor
  
• Frequent contributor
  
• Senior developer

everyone

The visualisation below presents responses in descending order of frequency.

figure

table

Summary of responses to engagement level

Question	N = 2301
What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)
Occasional user	99 (43%)
Frequent user	103 (45%)
Occasional contributor	22 (9.6%)
Frequent contributor	3 (1.3%)
Senior developer	2 (0.9%)
(missing)	1 (0.4%)
1n (%)

[PROVISIONAL REMARKS]

• just over 88% of the people who responded are users, not contributors
  
• almost all of the others were occasional contributors
  
• but about 2.2% were frequent contributors or senior developers

interactions

gender

figure

table

Summary of responses by gender to type of engagement

	Which gender do you identify most with?
	man	woman	not listed	NA	Total
What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)
Occasional user	52 (23%)	42 (18%)	3 (1.3%)	2 (0.9%)	99 (43%)
Frequent user	63 (27%)	35 (15%)	4 (1.7%)	1 (0.4%)	103 (45%)
Occasional contributor	15 (6.5%)	6 (2.6%)	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	22 (9.6%)
Frequent contributor	2 (0.9%)	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (1.3%)
Senior developer	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)	2 (0.9%)
NA	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)
Total	133 (58%)	85 (37%)	8 (3.5%)	4 (1.7%)	230 (100%)

---

other EDI variables

figure

tables

---

Summary of responses by sexual orientation to type of engagement

	Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?
	Yes	No	NA	Total
What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)
Occasional user	17 (7.4%)	80 (35%)	2 (0.9%)	99 (43%)
Frequent user	14 (6.1%)	86 (37%)	3 (1.3%)	103 (45%)
Occasional contributor	4 (1.7%)	18 (7.8%)	0 (0%)	22 (9.6%)
Frequent contributor	1 (0.4%)	2 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	3 (1.3%)
Senior developer	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)
NA	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)
Total	36 (16%)	189 (82%)	5 (2.2%)	230 (100%)

---

Summary of responses by race and/or culture to type of engagement

	Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?
	Yes	No	NA	Total
What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)
Occasional user	18 (7.8%)	80 (35%)	1 (0.4%)	99 (43%)
Frequent user	21 (9.1%)	80 (35%)	2 (0.9%)	103 (45%)
Occasional contributor	3 (1.3%)	18 (7.8%)	1 (0.4%)	22 (9.6%)
Frequent contributor	0 (0%)	3 (1.3%)	0 (0%)	3 (1.3%)
Senior developer	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)
NA	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)
Total	42 (18%)	184 (80%)	4 (1.7%)	230 (100%)

---

Summary of responses by disability and/or neurodivergence to type of engagement

	Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?
	Yes	No	NA	Total
What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)
Occasional user	12 (5.2%)	85 (37%)	2 (0.9%)	99 (43%)
Frequent user	10 (4.3%)	92 (40%)	1 (0.4%)	103 (45%)
Occasional contributor	3 (1.3%)	19 (8.3%)	0 (0%)	22 (9.6%)
Frequent contributor	2 (0.9%)	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	3 (1.3%)
Senior developer	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)
NA	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)
Total	28 (12%)	199 (87%)	3 (1.3%)	230 (100%)

---

Summary of responses by dominant language to type of engagement

	Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?
	Yes	No	NA	Total
What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)
Occasional user	54 (23%)	44 (19%)	1 (0.4%)	99 (43%)
Frequent user	67 (29%)	36 (16%)	0 (0%)	103 (45%)
Occasional contributor	15 (6.5%)	7 (3.0%)	0 (0%)	22 (9.6%)
Frequent contributor	2 (0.9%)	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	3 (1.3%)
Senior developer	1 (0.4%)	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)
NA	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)
Total	140 (61%)	89 (39%)	1 (0.4%)	230 (100%)

---

ways of contributing

This was a select-all-that-apply question, worded as follows:

In which way do you contribute most? (select all that apply)

Each participant could select more than one option when describing how they contribute most. For ease of visual and verbal summary, the responses were converted into new variables, one per response. It is important to note here that multiple responses from the same person were possible here (and certainly did occur).

The possible selections were as follows:

• Improving documentation
  
• Supporting other users (e.g., on the forum)
  
• Fixing bugs
  
• Adding new features
  
• Providing translations to other languages
  
• Other (describe)

It is important to keep in mind that participants may be counted as yes or no independently in any of the possible responses, which were converted to individual boolean variables below. If they selected the response, we assigned the value selected; if they did not, we assigned the value not selected.

everyone

figure

table

Summary of responses to contribution type

	Respondent choice
	Selected	Unselected	NA	Total
Ways of contributing to PsychoPy
[I] contribute [by] improving documentation	5 (0.4%)	225 (16%)	0 (0%)	230 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] supporting others	23 (1.7%)	207 (15%)	0 (0%)	230 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] fixing bugs	8 (0.6%)	222 (16%)	0 (0%)	230 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] adding new features	5 (0.4%)	225 (16%)	0 (0%)	230 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] providing translations	1 (<0.1%)	229 (17%)	0 (0%)	230 (17%)
[I] contribute [in] other [ways not listed here]	6 (0.4%)	224 (16%)	0 (0%)	230 (17%)
NA	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Total	48 (3.5%)	1,332 (97%)	0 (0%)	1,380 (100%)

descriptions

The participants were given the option to describe those other contributions. These descriptions are listed in the table below.

[PROVISIONAL REMARKS]

• supporting others seems to be the dominant form of contributing among the survey participants

---

interactions

gender

figure

table

Summary of responses by gender to ways of contributing

	man		woman		not listed		NA
Characteristic	Selected, N = 321	Unselected, N = 7661	Selected, N = 131	Unselected, N = 4971	Selected, N = 11	Unselected, N = 471	Selected, N = 21	Unselected, N = 221
Ways of contributing to PsychoPy
[I] contribute [by] improving documentation	3 (9.4%)	130 (17%)	1 (7.7%)	84 (17%)	0 (0%)	8 (17%)	1 (50%)	3 (14%)
[I] contribute [by] supporting others	17 (53%)	116 (15%)	5 (38%)	80 (16%)	1 (100%)	7 (15%)	0 (0%)	4 (18%)
[I] contribute [by] fixing bugs	5 (16%)	128 (17%)	3 (23%)	82 (16%)	0 (0%)	8 (17%)	0 (0%)	4 (18%)
[I] contribute [by] adding new features	4 (12%)	129 (17%)	0 (0%)	85 (17%)	0 (0%)	8 (17%)	1 (50%)	3 (14%)
[I] contribute [by] providing translations	1 (3.1%)	132 (17%)	0 (0%)	85 (17%)	0 (0%)	8 (17%)	0 (0%)	4 (18%)
[I] contribute [in] other [ways not listed here]	2 (6.2%)	131 (17%)	4 (31%)	81 (16%)	0 (0%)	8 (17%)	0 (0%)	4 (18%)
1n (%)

---

sexual orientation

figure

table

Summary of responses by sexual orientation to ways of contributing

	No		Yes		NA
Characteristic	Selected, N = 401	Unselected, N = 1,0941	Selected, N = 81	Unselected, N = 2081	Selected, N = 01	Unselected, N = 301
Ways of contributing to PsychoPy
[I] contribute [by] improving documentation	5 (12%)	184 (17%)	0 (0%)	36 (17%)	0 (NA%)	5 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] supporting others	19 (48%)	170 (16%)	4 (50%)	32 (15%)	0 (NA%)	5 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] fixing bugs	5 (12%)	184 (17%)	3 (38%)	33 (16%)	0 (NA%)	5 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] adding new features	4 (10%)	185 (17%)	1 (12%)	35 (17%)	0 (NA%)	5 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] providing translations	1 (2.5%)	188 (17%)	0 (0%)	36 (17%)	0 (NA%)	5 (17%)
[I] contribute [in] other [ways not listed here]	6 (15%)	183 (17%)	0 (0%)	36 (17%)	0 (NA%)	5 (17%)
1n (%)

---

race and/or culture

figure

table

Summary of responses by race and/or culture to ways of contributing

	No		Yes		NA
Characteristic	Selected, N = 431	Unselected, N = 1,0611	Selected, N = 41	Unselected, N = 2481	Selected, N = 11	Unselected, N = 231
Ways of contributing to PsychoPy
[I] contribute [by] improving documentation	5 (12%)	179 (17%)	0 (0%)	42 (17%)	0 (0%)	4 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] supporting others	20 (47%)	164 (15%)	2 (50%)	40 (16%)	1 (100%)	3 (13%)
[I] contribute [by] fixing bugs	7 (16%)	177 (17%)	1 (25%)	41 (17%)	0 (0%)	4 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] adding new features	5 (12%)	179 (17%)	0 (0%)	42 (17%)	0 (0%)	4 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] providing translations	1 (2.3%)	183 (17%)	0 (0%)	42 (17%)	0 (0%)	4 (17%)
[I] contribute [in] other [ways not listed here]	5 (12%)	179 (17%)	1 (25%)	41 (17%)	0 (0%)	4 (17%)
1n (%)

---

disability and/or neurodivergence

figure

table

Summary of responses by disability and/or neuordivergence to ways of contributing

	No		Yes		NA
Characteristic	Selected, N = 361	Unselected, N = 1,1581	Selected, N = 121	Unselected, N = 1561	Selected, N = 01	Unselected, N = 181
Ways of contributing to PsychoPy
[I] contribute [by] improving documentation	4 (11%)	195 (17%)	1 (8.3%)	27 (17%)	0 (NA%)	3 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] supporting others	18 (50%)	181 (16%)	5 (42%)	23 (15%)	0 (NA%)	3 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] fixing bugs	5 (14%)	194 (17%)	3 (25%)	25 (16%)	0 (NA%)	3 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] adding new features	3 (8.3%)	196 (17%)	2 (17%)	26 (17%)	0 (NA%)	3 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] providing translations	1 (2.8%)	198 (17%)	0 (0%)	28 (18%)	0 (NA%)	3 (17%)
[I] contribute [in] other [ways not listed here]	5 (14%)	194 (17%)	1 (8.3%)	27 (17%)	0 (NA%)	3 (17%)
1n (%)

---

English as dominant language

figure

table

Summary of responses by written-English dominance to ways of contributing

	No		Yes		NA
Characteristic	Selected, N = 181	Unselected, N = 5161	Selected, N = 301	Unselected, N = 8101	Selected, N = 01	Unselected, N = 61
Ways of contributing to PsychoPy
[I] contribute [by] improving documentation	3 (17%)	86 (17%)	2 (6.7%)	138 (17%)	0 (NA%)	1 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] supporting others	10 (56%)	79 (15%)	13 (43%)	127 (16%)	0 (NA%)	1 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] fixing bugs	2 (11%)	87 (17%)	6 (20%)	134 (17%)	0 (NA%)	1 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] adding new features	2 (11%)	87 (17%)	3 (10%)	137 (17%)	0 (NA%)	1 (17%)
[I] contribute [by] providing translations	1 (5.6%)	88 (17%)	0 (0%)	140 (17%)	0 (NA%)	1 (17%)
[I] contribute [in] other [ways not listed here]	0 (0%)	89 (17%)	6 (20%)	134 (17%)	0 (NA%)	1 (17%)
1n (%)

---

deterrents to contributing

Participants were asked the following:

To what extent do each of the following limit the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project?

Below the question was a list of the following potential causes:

• Lack of interest
  
• Lack of time
  
• Lack of knowledge on how to get started
  
• Lack of coding skills
  
• Not confident I would be welcomed by the community
  
• Not aware contributing was possible

Participants could rank each of these on a 1-5 Likert scale, where 1 indicated not at all and a 5 indicated very much.

This section summarises, both visually and verbally, the rankings that participants provided for each potential cause.

Note

Note that on this 1-5 scale, the number 3 is directly in the middle of the scale, which can be interpreted as neither agreeing nor disagreeing. We set responses of 3 to the side of the stacked frequency barplots below, in yellow.

Also, the barplots are sorted along descending frequency of agreement. That is, the topmost barplot is the one with highest number of agreements, whereas the bottommost barplot is the one with the highest number of disagreements.

everyone

figure

table

Statistical summaries of responses to statements regarding deterrents to contributing.

Statement (1 = not at all; 5 = very much)	n (NA)	N = 230
Lack of interest limits the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	219 (11)
Mean		1.8
SD		1.05
Median		1.0
IQR		1.0, 3.0
Range		1, 5
[Lack of time] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	226 (4)
Mean		3.8
SD		1.25
Median		4.0
IQR		3.0, 5.0
Range		1, 5
[Not knowing how to start] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	226 (4)
Mean		3.0
SD		1.32
Median		3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5
[Lack of coding skills] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	227 (3)
Mean		3.1
SD		1.39
Median		3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5
[Lack of confidence in a welcome] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	225 (5)
Mean		1.7
SD		1.04
Median		1.0
IQR		1.0, 2.0
Range		1, 5
[Unawareness that contributing was possible] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	225 (5)
Mean		2.3
SD		1.41
Median		2.0
IQR		1.0, 3.0
Range		1, 5

[PROVISIONAL REMARKS]

• Lack of time is dominant here
  
• but not knowing how to start is close behind, which is good news for us in terms of increasing the contributor base
  
• importantly, most participants disagreed that lack of interest or lack of confidence in a welcome were holding them back

interactions

gender

figure

table

4 observations missing `gender` have been removed. To include these observations, use `forcats::fct_explicit_na()` on `gender` column before passing to `tbl_summary()`.

Statistical summaries by gender of responses to statements regarding deterrents to contributing.

		Which gender do you identify most with?
Statement (1 = not at all; 5 = very much)	n (NA)	man, N = 1331	not listed, N = 81	woman, N = 851
Lack of interest limits the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	216 (10)
Mean		1.8	1.4	1.9
SD		1.01	0.52	1.15
Median		1.0	1.0	1.0
IQR		1.0, 3.0	1.0, 2.0	1.0, 3.0
Range		1, 5	1, 2	1, 5
[Lack of time] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	223 (3)
Mean		3.9	3.0	3.7
SD		1.19	1.60	1.31
Median		4.0	3.0	4.0
IQR		3.0, 5.0	1.8, 4.2	3.0, 5.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5	1, 5
[Not knowing how to start] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	222 (4)
Mean		3.0	3.0	3.0
SD		1.34	1.69	1.29
Median		3.0	3.0	3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0	1.8, 4.2	2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5	1, 5
[Lack of coding skills] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	224 (2)
Mean		2.9	2.6	3.4
SD		1.36	1.51	1.37
Median		3.0	2.0	3.5
IQR		2.0, 4.0	1.8, 4.0	2.0, 5.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5	1, 5
[Lack of confidence in a welcome] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	222 (4)
Mean		1.6	2.0	1.8
SD		1.03	1.20	1.05
Median		1.0	1.5	1.0
IQR		1.0, 2.0	1.0, 3.0	1.0, 2.0
Range		1, 5	1, 4	1, 5
[Unawareness that contributing was possible] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	221 (5)
Mean		2.1	2.8	2.5
SD		1.29	1.91	1.46
Median		2.0	2.5	2.0
IQR		1.0, 3.0	1.0, 4.2	1.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5	1, 5
1There was/were 0 extra missing values in this table due to non-responses to this particular EDI variable.

---

sexual orientation

figure

table

5 observations missing `nonHeteroCommunity` have been removed. To include these observations, use `forcats::fct_explicit_na()` on `nonHeteroCommunity` column before passing to `tbl_summary()`.

Statistical summaries by sexual orientation of responses to statements regarding deterrents to contributing.

		Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?
Statement (1 = not at all; 5 = very much)	n (NA)	No, N = 1891	Yes, N = 361
Lack of interest limits the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	215 (10)
Mean		1.8	1.7
SD		1.10	0.76
Median		1.0	2.0
IQR		1.0, 3.0	1.0, 2.0
Range		1, 5	1, 4
[Lack of time] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	222 (3)
Mean		3.9	3.4
SD		1.24	1.32
Median		4.0	3.0
IQR		3.0, 5.0	2.0, 5.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Not knowing how to start] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	221 (4)
Mean		3.1	2.7
SD		1.32	1.28
Median		3.0	2.5
IQR		2.0, 4.0	2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Lack of coding skills] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	223 (2)
Mean		3.1	3.1
SD		1.38	1.44
Median		3.0	3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0	2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Lack of confidence in a welcome] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	221 (4)
Mean		1.7	1.8
SD		1.04	1.10
Median		1.0	1.0
IQR		1.0, 2.0	1.0, 2.2
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Unawareness that contributing was possible] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	220 (5)
Mean		2.3	2.4
SD		1.41	1.42
Median		2.0	2.0
IQR		1.0, 3.0	1.0, 3.2
Range		1, 5	1, 5
1There was/were 0 extra missing values in this table due to non-responses to this particular EDI variable.

---

race and/or culture

figure

table

4 observations missing `raceCulture` have been removed. To include these observations, use `forcats::fct_explicit_na()` on `raceCulture` column before passing to `tbl_summary()`.

Statistical summaries by race and/or culture of responses to statements regarding deterrents to contributing.

		Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?
Statement (1 = not at all; 5 = very much)	n (NA)	No, N = 1841	Yes, N = 421
Lack of interest limits the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	216 (10)
Mean		1.8	1.9
SD		1.03	1.16
Median		1.0	2.0
IQR		1.0, 3.0	1.0, 2.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Lack of time] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	223 (3)
Mean		3.8	3.8
SD		1.25	1.24
Median		4.0	4.0
IQR		3.0, 5.0	3.0, 5.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Not knowing how to start] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	222 (4)
Mean		3.0	3.2
SD		1.33	1.29
Median		3.0	3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0	2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Lack of coding skills] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	224 (2)
Mean		3.1	3.0
SD		1.36	1.51
Median		3.0	3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0	2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Lack of confidence in a welcome] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	222 (4)
Mean		1.6	2.0
SD		1.00	1.18
Median		1.0	2.0
IQR		1.0, 2.0	1.0, 3.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Unawareness that contributing was possible] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	221 (5)
Mean		2.2	2.7
SD		1.35	1.55
Median		2.0	2.5
IQR		1.0, 3.0	1.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
1There was/were 0 extra missing values in this table due to non-responses to this particular EDI variable.

---

disability and/or neurodivergence

figure

table

3 observations missing `disability` have been removed. To include these observations, use `forcats::fct_explicit_na()` on `disability` column before passing to `tbl_summary()`.

Statistical summaries by disability and/or neurodivergence of responses to statements regarding deterrents to contributing.

		Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?
Statement (1 = not at all; 5 = very much)	n (NA)	No, N = 1991	Yes, N = 281
Lack of interest limits the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	217 (10)
Mean		1.8	1.7
SD		1.07	0.94
Median		1.0	1.0
IQR		1.0, 3.0	1.0, 2.5
Range		1, 5	1, 4
[Lack of time] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	224 (3)
Mean		3.8	3.8
SD		1.23	1.43
Median		4.0	4.0
IQR		3.0, 5.0	3.0, 5.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Not knowing how to start] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	223 (4)
Mean		3.0	3.0
SD		1.33	1.32
Median		3.0	3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0	2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Lack of coding skills] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	225 (2)
Mean		3.1	2.9
SD		1.37	1.48
Median		3.0	3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0	1.8, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Lack of confidence in a welcome] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	223 (4)
Mean		1.7	1.8
SD		1.06	0.99
Median		1.0	1.0
IQR		1.0, 2.0	1.0, 3.0
Range		1, 5	1, 4
[Unawareness that contributing was possible] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	222 (5)
Mean		2.2	2.5
SD		1.36	1.67
Median		2.0	1.5
IQR		1.0, 3.0	1.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
1There was/were 0 extra missing values in this table due to non-responses to this particular EDI variable.

---

English as dominant language

figure

table

1 observations missing `domLangEnglish` have been removed. To include these observations, use `forcats::fct_explicit_na()` on `domLangEnglish` column before passing to `tbl_summary()`.

Statistical summaries by whether the respondents’ dominant written language is English of responses to statements regarding deterrents to contributing.

		Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?
Statement (1 = not at all; 5 = very much)	n (NA)	No, N = 891	Yes, N = 1401
Lack of interest limits the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	218 (11)
Mean		1.8	1.8
SD		1.11	1.02
Median		1.0	1.0
IQR		1.0, 3.0	1.0, 2.8
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Lack of time] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	225 (4)
Mean		3.8	3.8
SD		1.18	1.30
Median		4.0	4.0
IQR		3.0, 5.0	3.0, 5.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Not knowing how to start] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	225 (4)
Mean		3.0	3.1
SD		1.31	1.34
Median		3.0	3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0	2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Lack of coding skills] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	226 (3)
Mean		3.0	3.1
SD		1.35	1.40
Median		3.0	3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0	2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Lack of confidence in a welcome] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	224 (5)
Mean		1.5	1.8
SD		0.82	1.15
Median		1.0	1.0
IQR		1.0, 2.0	1.0, 2.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
[Unawareness that contributing was possible] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project	224 (5)
Mean		2.1	2.4
SD		1.33	1.45
Median		2.0	2.0
IQR		1.0, 3.0	1.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5
1There was/were 0 extra missing values in this table due to non-responses to this particular EDI variable.

---

workshops on contributing

This section summarises, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute

Participants provided answers on a 1-5 Likert scale, where 1 indicated Strongly disagree and a 5 indicated Strongly agree.

everyone

figure

table

Statistical summaries of responses to statement regarding the potential helpfulness of contributor workshops.

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	N = 230
My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute	223 (7)
Mean		3.0
SD		1.26
Median		3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5

[PROVISIONAL REMARKS]

• It looks like around half of the participants agreed that they could be engaged more with workshops. That’s really good.

interactions

gender

figure

table

Summary of responses to desire for workshops by gender.

		Which gender do you identify most with?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	man, N = 133	woman, N = 85	not listed, N = 8	(missing), N = 4
My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute	223 (7)
Mean		2.9	3.2	3.0	3.0
SD		1.27	1.23	1.41	1.15
Median		3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0	2.0, 4.0	2.0, 3.5	2.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5	1, 5	2, 4

---

other EDI dimensions

figure

tables

---

Summary of responses to desire for workshops by sexual orientation.

		Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	No, N = 189	Yes, N = 36	(missing), N = 5
My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute	223 (7)
Mean		2.9	3.3	3.4
SD		1.25	1.31	0.55
Median		3.0	3.0	3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0	2.0, 4.2	3.0, 4.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5	3, 4

---

Summary of responses to desire for workshops by race and/or culture.

		Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	No, N = 184	Yes, N = 42	(missing), N = 4
My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute	223 (7)
Mean		2.9	3.3	4.2
SD		1.19	1.44	0.96
Median		3.0	3.5	4.5
IQR		2.0, 4.0	2.0, 5.0	3.8, 5.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5	3, 5

---

Summary of responses to desire for workshops by disability and/or neurodivergence.

		Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	No, N = 199	Yes, N = 28	(missing), N = 3
My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute	223 (7)
Mean		3.0	3.2	3.3
SD		1.28	1.17	0.58
Median		3.0	3.0	3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0	2.8, 4.0	3.0, 3.5
Range		1, 5	1, 5	3, 4

---

Summary of responses to desire for workshops by written-English language dominance.

		Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	No, N = 89	Yes, N = 140	(missing), N = 1
My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute	223 (7)
Mean		2.9	3.1	3.0
SD		1.21	1.29	NA
Median		3.0	3.0	3.0
IQR		2.0, 4.0	2.0, 4.0	3.0, 3.0
Range		1, 5	1, 5	3, 3

---

guidance

The third group of items on the survey collected information about documentation and the participants’ awareness of and experience with the Code of Conduct.

There were three questions concerning each of the following:

• awareness of the Code of Conduct
  
• how findable, searchable, and accessible PsychoPy’s^® documentation is
  
• how much they trust the Code of Conduct will be enforced

The first was answered with a simple yes or no. The latter two were statements evaluated with a 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 represented Strongly disagree, and 7 represented Strongly agree.

Note

As before, note that on the 1-7 scale, the number 4 is directly in the middle of the scale, which can be interpreted as neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Accordingly, we set responses of 4 to the side of the respective stacked frequency barplots, in yellow.

awareness of Code of Conduct

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

I am aware of the community Code of Conduct

everyone

figure

table

Summary of responses to awareness of Code of Conduct

Question	N = 2301
I am aware of the community Code of Conduct
Yes	148 (64%)
No	80 (35%)
(missing)	2 (0.9%)
1n (%)

---

interactions

gender

figure

table

Summary of responses by gender to awareness of the Code of Conduct

	Which gender do you identify most with?
	man	woman	not listed	NA	Total
I am aware of the community Code of Conduct
Yes	75 (33%)	62 (27%)	7 (3.0%)	4 (1.7%)	148 (64%)
No	57 (25%)	22 (9.6%)	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	80 (35%)
NA	1 (0.4%)	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)
Total	133 (58%)	85 (37%)	8 (3.5%)	4 (1.7%)	230 (100%)

other EDI dimensions

figure

tables

Summary of responses by sexual orientation to awareness of the Code of Conduct

	Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?
	Yes	No	NA	Total
I am aware of the community Code of Conduct
Yes	23 (10%)	122 (53%)	3 (1.3%)	148 (64%)
No	13 (5.7%)	66 (29%)	1 (0.4%)	80 (35%)
NA	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)	1 (0.4%)	2 (0.9%)
Total	36 (16%)	189 (82%)	5 (2.2%)	230 (100%)

---

Summary of responses by race and/or culture to awareness of the Code of Conduct

	Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?
	Yes	No	NA	Total
I am aware of the community Code of Conduct
Yes	26 (11%)	119 (52%)	3 (1.3%)	148 (64%)
No	16 (7.0%)	64 (28%)	0 (0%)	80 (35%)
NA	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)	1 (0.4%)	2 (0.9%)
Total	42 (18%)	184 (80%)	4 (1.7%)	230 (100%)

---

Summary of responses by disability and/or neurodivergence to awareness of the Code of Conduct

	Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?
	Yes	No	NA	Total
I am aware of the community Code of Conduct
Yes	23 (10%)	124 (54%)	1 (0.4%)	148 (64%)
No	5 (2.2%)	74 (32%)	1 (0.4%)	80 (35%)
NA	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)	1 (0.4%)	2 (0.9%)
Total	28 (12%)	199 (87%)	3 (1.3%)	230 (100%)

---

Summary of responses by written-English language dominance to awareness of the Code of Conduct

	Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?
	Yes	No	NA	Total
I am aware of the community Code of Conduct
Yes	94 (41%)	54 (23%)	0 (0%)	148 (64%)
No	46 (20%)	34 (15%)	0 (0%)	80 (35%)
NA	0 (0%)	1 (0.4%)	1 (0.4%)	2 (0.9%)
Total	140 (61%)	89 (39%)	1 (0.4%)	230 (100%)

findability, searchability, & accessibility

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible

everyone

figure

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding whether the documentation is findable, searchable, and accessible.

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	N = 230
I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible	227 (3)
Mean		4.8
SD		1.48
Median		5.0
IQR		4.0, 6.0
Range		1, 7

---

interactions

gender

figure

table

Summary of responses by gender to finding the documentation easily findable, searchable, and accessible

		Which gender do you identify most with?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	man, N = 133	woman, N = 85	not listed, N = 8	(missing), N = 4
I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible	227 (3)
Mean		4.6	5.0	5.2	4.8
SD		1.59	1.31	0.89	1.26
Median		5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0
IQR		4.0, 6.0	4.0, 6.0	5.0, 5.2	4.5, 5.2
Range		1, 7	2, 7	4, 7	3, 6

other EDI dimensions

figure

tables

Summary of responses by sexual orientation to finding the documentation easily findable, searchable, and accessible

		Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	Yes, N = 36	No, N = 189	(missing), N = 5
I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible	227 (3)
Mean		4.7	4.8	5.4
SD		1.51	1.49	0.89
Median		5.0	5.0	6.0
IQR		4.0, 5.5	4.0, 6.0	5.0, 6.0
Range		1, 7	1, 7	4, 6

---

Summary of responses by race and/or culture to finding the documentation easily findable, searchable, and accessible

		Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	Yes, N = 42	No, N = 184	(missing), N = 4
I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible	227 (3)
Mean		4.5	4.8	5.2
SD		1.67	1.43	1.71
Median		5.0	5.0	5.5
IQR		4.0, 6.0	4.0, 6.0	4.5, 6.2
Range		1, 7	1, 7	3, 7

---

Summary of responses by disability and/or neurodivergence to finding the documentation easily findable, searchable, and accessible

		Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	Yes, N = 28	No, N = 199	(missing), N = 3
I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible	227 (3)
Mean		4.8	4.8	5.7
SD		1.29	1.51	0.58
Median		5.0	5.0	6.0
IQR		4.0, 5.0	4.0, 6.0	5.5, 6.0
Range		2, 7	1, 7	5, 6

---

Summary of responses by English-language dominance to finding the documentation easily findable, searchable, and accessible

		Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	Yes, N = 140	No, N = 89	(missing), N = 1
I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible	227 (3)
Mean		4.9	4.7	5.0
SD		1.50	1.45	NA
Median		5.0	5.0	5.0
IQR		4.0, 6.0	4.0, 6.0	5.0, 5.0
Range		1, 7	1, 7	5, 5

trust in enforcement

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced

everyone

figure

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding trust in enforcement of the Code of Conduct

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	N = 230
I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced	224 (6)
Mean		5.4
SD		1.34
Median		5.0
IQR		4.0, 7.0
Range		1, 7

[PROVISIONAL REMARKS]

• About two-thirds of the participants were aware of the Code of Conduct. I suppose that’s to be expected, but it’s kinda disappointing, no?
  
• Most of them felt that the documentation was easily findable, searchable, and accessible. But there were a few (just under 20%) who disagreed with this in general.
  
• In terms of trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced, there was general agreement here, though about 5% expressed mild disagreement here. About 2% expressed somewhat stronger disagreement. One person expressed the strongest level of disagreement (i.e., Strongly disagree).

interactions

gender

figure

table

Summary of responses by gender to trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced

		Which gender do you identify most with?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	man, N = 133	woman, N = 85	not listed, N = 8	(missing), N = 4
I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced	224 (6)
Mean		5.3	5.4	5.4	4.8
SD		1.31	1.37	1.60	1.71
Median		5.0	5.0	5.5	4.5
IQR		4.0, 6.0	4.0, 7.0	5.0, 6.2	3.8, 5.5
Range		1, 7	2, 7	2, 7	3, 7

other EDI variables

figure

tables

Summary of responses by sexual orientation to trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced

		Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	Yes, N = 36	No, N = 189	(missing), N = 5
I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced	224 (6)
Mean		5.1	5.4	5.0
SD		1.51	1.30	1.58
Median		5.0	5.0	5.0
IQR		4.0, 6.0	4.0, 7.0	4.0, 6.0
Range		2, 7	1, 7	3, 7

---

Summary of responses by race and/or culture to trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced

		Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	Yes, N = 42	No, N = 184	(missing), N = 4
I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced	224 (6)
Mean		5.0	5.4	5.2
SD		1.54	1.28	1.71
Median		5.0	5.0	5.5
IQR		4.0, 6.0	4.0, 7.0	4.5, 6.2
Range		1, 7	2, 7	3, 7

---

Summary of responses by disability and/or neurodivergence to trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced

		Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	Yes, N = 28	No, N = 199	(missing), N = 3
I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced	224 (6)
Mean		5.6	5.3	4.0
SD		1.50	1.32	1.00
Median		6.0	5.0	4.0
IQR		4.0, 7.0	4.0, 7.0	3.5, 4.5
Range		2, 7	1, 7	3, 5

---

Summary of responses by language dominance in written English to trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced

		Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	n (NA)	Yes, N = 140	No, N = 89	(missing), N = 1
I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced	224 (6)
Mean		5.5	5.2	5.0
SD		1.36	1.31	NA
Median		6.0	5.0	5.0
IQR		4.0, 7.0	4.0, 6.0	5.0, 5.0
Range		2, 7	1, 7	5, 5

[PROVISIONAL FINAL REMARKS]

organizational background

In terms of the background variables, most of the people responding were early-career researchers and frequent users. Most of them interact with the community through helping others on the forum.

Lack of time and not knowing how to start seem to be the most important deterrents, but certainly not lack of interest or fear of not being welcome in the community. About half of them agreed that workshops would encourage them to contribute more.

EDI variables

With respect to equity, diversity, and inclusion, there were several interesting findings.

gender

Concerning gender, there was an odd finding at first blush. None of the eight people who identified as neither a man nor a woman indicated that they felt their identity had affected their interactions in the PsychoPy^® community. However, two people who identified as men and two who identified as women did. Note that we did not ask anyone whether they were transgender. Any number of the 4 women and men could have been transgender.

But looking at the issues of treatment, self-regard, and isolation, this group seemed to be in general disagreement with (or neutral about) almost all of the statements. Still, on each question, about 1 out of the 4 seems to indicate some level of agreement. This could be more than one person.

sexual orientation

The next category was sexual orientation. Here, only \(\frac{1}{36}\) indicated that their sexual orientation might have been a problem in the PsychoPy^® community. Still, that one person indicated disagreement with all of the treatment and self-regard questions. The only question that they weren’t in disagreement about was the isolation statement, and even there, they were neutral (having selected 4 on the 1-7 scale).

race and/or culture

Next we come to race and/or culture. Here, only \(\frac{3}{42}\) felt that their identity had affected their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community.

In general however, they were fairly split across the board in terms of how others had treated them. Two exceptions were negative perception by others, where two of the three expressed that they had experienced that, and intentially derisive comments, where no one expressed agreement with having experienced that.

They were however, (almost) overwhelmingly in agreement with the self-regard and isolation statements.

They seem to lack confidence, more than anything.

disability and/or neurodivergence

With respect to disability and/or neurodivergence, the highest percentage of all the groups (\(\frac{6}{28}\)) went on to evaluate the subsequent EDI statements.

This group disagreed more unanimously with the treatment statements, with only one of them indicating that (1) there had some any negative perception of them, and (2) that they felt they needed to hide their identity in this regard.

But on the self-regard and isolation statements, there was general agreement. They seem to lack some self-confidence, along with feeling a little isolated.

written-English language dominance

Concerning written-English language dominance, of the 82 participants who indicated that their dominant written language is not English, only nine suggested that this might have been a problem in their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community.

Among them, they disagreed in general (but not universally) with the statements regarding poor treatment by others. If there were any statements that raise concern, they are the ones about negative perception and hiding their identity (similar to the other groups).

But unlike the race/culture and disability/neurodivergence groups, this group also expressed little agreement with the self-regard statements. This actually makes sense as there’s little reason to believe that non-English language dominance should affect one’s self-regard.

In their case, the stand-out statement was the one on isolation. The majority of them do feel isolated, quite strongly it seems.

environment variables

With respect to the Code of Conduct and documentation, a sizeable minority was not aware of the existence of the Code of Conduct. There was general (but not overwhelming) agreement that the documentation was easily findable, searchable, and accessible (M = 4.8, SD = 1.45, negative skew). There quite strong agreement that the Code of Conduct would be enforced (M = 5.4, SD = 1.32, strong negative skew with responses stacked increasingly positive).

---

R Packages used

Package	Version	Citation
colorblindcheck	1.0.0	Nowosad (2019)
dplyr	1.1.2	Wickham, François, et al. (2023)
DT	0.27	Xie et al. (2023)
flextable	0.9.1	Gohel & Skintzos (2023)
forcats	1.0.0	Wickham (2023)
ggplot2	3.4.2	Wickham (2016)
ggtext	0.1.2	Wilke & Wiernik (2022)
grateful	0.1.11	Rodríguez-Sánchez et al. (2022)
gtsummary	1.7.0	Sjoberg et al. (2021)
knitr	1.42	Xie (2014); Xie (2015); Xie (2023a)
magrittr	2.0.3	Bache & Wickham (2022)
purrr	1.0.1	Wickham & Henry (2023)
remotes	2.4.2	Csárdi et al. (2021)
renv	0.17.3	Ushey (2023)
showtext	0.9.5	Qiu & See file AUTHORS for details. (2022b)
sjlabelled	1.2.0	Lüdecke (2022)
sjmisc	2.8.9	Lüdecke (2018)
sjPlot	2.8.14	Lüdecke (2023)
stringr	1.5.0	Wickham (2022)
sysfonts	0.8.8	Qiu & See file AUTHORS for details. (2022a)
systemfonts	1.0.4	Pedersen et al. (2022)
tidyr	1.3.0	Wickham, Vaughan, et al. (2023)
xfun	0.39	Xie (2023b)

---

Appendix

Color-blindness check

The custom palettes used in this report (which are based on the colors used at Open Science Tools, Ltd.) are simulated through various forms of color blindness below to ensure that most people can distinguish the colors on the figures.

two colors

three colors

five colors

six colors

References

Bache, S. M., & Wickham, H. (2022). Magrittr: A forward-pipe operator for r. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=magrittr

Csárdi, G., Hester, J., Wickham, H., Chang, W., Morgan, M., & Tenenbaum, D. (2021). Remotes: R package installation from remote repositories, including ’GitHub’. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=remotes

Gohel, D., & Skintzos, P. (2023). Flextable: Functions for tabular reporting. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=flextable

Lüdecke, D. (2018). Sjmisc: Data and variable transformation functions. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(26), 754. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00754

Lüdecke, D. (2022). Sjlabelled: Labelled data utility functions (version 1.2.0). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1249215

Lüdecke, D. (2023). sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot

Nowosad, J. (2019). Check color palettes for problems with color vision deficiency. https://nowosad.github.io/colorblindcheck/

Pedersen, T. L., Ooms, J., & Govett, D. (2022). Systemfonts: System native font finding. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=systemfonts

Qiu, Y., & See file AUTHORS for details., authors/contributors of the included fonts. (2022a). Sysfonts: Loading fonts into r. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sysfonts

Qiu, Y., & See file AUTHORS for details., authors/contributors of the included software. (2022b). Showtext: Using fonts more easily in r graphs. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=showtext

Rodríguez-Sánchez, F., Jackson, C. P., & Hutchins, S. D. (2022). Grateful: Facilitate citation of r packages. https://github.com/Pakillo/grateful

Sjoberg, D. D., Whiting, K., Curry, M., Lavery, J. A., & Larmarange, J. (2021). Reproducible summary tables with the gtsummary package. The R Journal, 13, 570–580. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2021-053

Ushey, K. (2023). Renv: Project environments. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=renv

Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org

Wickham, H. (2022). Stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr

Wickham, H. (2023). Forcats: Tools for working with categorical variables (factors). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=forcats

Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., Müller, K., & Vaughan, D. (2023). Dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr

Wickham, H., & Henry, L. (2023). Purrr: Functional programming tools. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=purrr

Wickham, H., Vaughan, D., & Girlich, M. (2023). Tidyr: Tidy messy data. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr

Wilke, C. O., & Wiernik, B. M. (2022). Ggtext: Improved text rendering support for ’ggplot2’. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggtext

Xie, Y. (2014). Knitr: A comprehensive tool for reproducible research in R. In V. Stodden, F. Leisch, & R. D. Peng (Eds.), Implementing reproducible computational research. Chapman; Hall/CRC.

Xie, Y. (2015). Dynamic documents with R and knitr (2nd ed.). Chapman; Hall/CRC. https://yihui.org/knitr/

Xie, Y. (2023a). Knitr: A general-purpose package for dynamic report generation in r. https://yihui.org/knitr/

Xie, Y. (2023b). Xfun: Supporting functions for packages maintained by ’yihui xie’. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=xfun

Xie, Y., Cheng, J., & Tan, X. (2023). DT: A wrapper of the JavaScript library ’DataTables’. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DT